Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

In Re: a First-grade Pleader

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 16, 1900
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/781109

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Legal Practitioners Act - Act XVIII of 1879, Sections 13, 14--Petition containing disrespectful language presented by co-plaintiff who was also a pleader in the Court--Act committed by a suitor. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: a First-grade Pleader

Legal References

Reported In
(1901)ILR24Mad17

Excerpt

legal practitioners act - act xviii of 1879, sections 13, 14--petition containing disrespectful language presented by co-plaintiff who was also a pleader in the court--act committed by a suitor. - 1. there is no doubt the language used in the petition was highly improper, and in returning the petition for amendment, the judge adopted the proper course. as no further immediate action was taken and the petition was not represented, the matter should have been allowed to drop and not resuscitated after the lapse of several months.2. further, we are of opinion that steps should not have been taken against the petitioner under the legal practitioners act go long as it was possible to take notice of the act in any other way, as one committed by a suitor. [see the case of in re wallace l.r. 1 p.c. 283. it may be added that the act of the petitioner was not per se sufficient to disqualify him from continuing to be a pleader.3. we therefore dismiss the charge.

Full Judgment

1. There is no doubt the language used in the petition was highly improper, and in returning the petition for amendment, the Judge adopted the proper course. As no further immediate action was taken and the petition was not represented, the matter should have been allowed to drop and not resuscitated after the lapse of several months.

2. Further, we are of opinion that steps should not have been taken against the petitioner under the Legal Practitioners Act go long as it was possible to take notice of the act in any other way, as one committed by a suitor. [See the case of In re Wallace L.R. 1 P.C. 283. It may be added that the act of the petitioner was not per se sufficient to disqualify him from continuing to be a pleader.

3. We therefore dismiss the charge.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: a First-grade Pleader vs Same Subject Civil Same Judge Subrahmania Ayyar and ;Davies, JJ.
Civil

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales